Highway Patrol are
both departments and sub-agencies of the California Business, Transportation &
Housing agency. The departments/sub-agencies are authorized with original
jurisdiction to enforce and hold administrative court hearings concerning
California Vehicle Code, "CVC," violations.

This judicial court
does not have original jurisdiction in this case.

3. Dismissal is
proper in this case because this court was not properly petitioned with a writ
of mandate, as required by law, to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of
this court, for judicial review of the administrative law court's order or final
determination.

4. This motion is
based on the attached Defendant's Memorandum Of

Points & Authorities
for Notice & Motion For Dismissal For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and
all pleadings and papers on file. 5. Please take notice that xxxxxxxx will
bring this motion for a pre-trial hearing before this court on ______________,
at _______, in __________.

10. According to CVC
§265 & §295 Words & Phrases, the commissioner is the Commissioner of the CHP,
and the director is the Director of the

DMV: §265. The
"commissioner" is the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.

§295. The "director"
is the Director of Motor Vehicles.

11. According to CVC
§1650 & §2400(b). Powers & Duties. The director of the DMV is authorized with
original jurisdiction and charged with administering and enforcing the (CVC)
code; the commissioner of the CHP is authorized with
original jurisdiction and charged with enforcement of the laws regulating
vehicles & use of the highway:

§1650. The director
shall administer and enforce the provisions of this code relating to the
department.

§2400(b) the
commissioner shall enforce all laws regulating the operation of vehicles and the
use of the highways

Housing agency,
hereafter collectively, "Agency," which are not expressly exempted nor are there
statutes relating to the proceedings that provide otherwise, must abide by the
Administrative Procedures Act, "APA":

§11400. (a) This
chapter and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section

11500) constitute the
administrative adjudication provisions of the

Administrative
Procedure Act.

§11410.20. Except as
otherwise expressly provided by statute:

(a) This chapter
applies to all agencies of the state.

§11410.50. This
chapter applies to an adjudicative proceeding required to be conducted under
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) unless the statutes relating to the
proceeding provide otherwise. (Emphasis added.)

13. According to CGC §
11425.10(a)(1 & 2), the Agency is required to give notice of any Agency actions
and is required to send a copy of the procedure governing the action:

§11425.10. (a) The
governing procedure by which an agency conducts an adjudicative proceeding is
subject to all of the following requirements:

(1) The agency
shall give the person to which the agency action is directed notice and an
opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to present and rebut
evidence.

(2) The agency shall
make available to the person to which the agency action is directed a copy of
the governing procedure, including a statement whether Chapter 5 (commencing
with Section 11500) is applicable to the proceeding.

14. According to CGC
§11410.10 & §11503, an agency is required to conduct adjudicative hearings for
actions undertaken within the purview of its authority where a state statute or
an inalienable right (to travel) is in question:

§11410.10. This
chapter applies to a decision by an agency if, under the federal or state
Constitution or a federal or state statute, an evidentiary hearing for
determination of facts is required for formulation and issuance of the decision.

§11503. A hearing to
determine whether a right, authority, license or privilege should be revoked,
suspended, limited or conditioned shall be initiated by filing a citation.
(Emphasis added)

15. According to CGC
§11502(a) all Agency hearings are required to be heard by executive branch
administrative law judges, not judicial branch judges:

§11502(a) All hearings
of state agencies required to be conducted under this chapter shall be conducted
by administrative law judges on the staff of the Office of Administrative
Hearings.

16. CGC §11523
provides the proper procedure for the Agency (or

Defendant) to request
judicial review of the administrative Agency's final decision or order:

§11523. Judicial
review may be had by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in accordance with
the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure, subject,
however, to the statutes relating to the particular agency.

D. Argument

17. It is contrary to
the principle of separation of powers and a breach of due process for this
judicial branch court to usurp the executive branch administrative authority,
duty & jurisdiction held by the DMV, 18. The UTC issued to Defendant was
undertaken within the purview of the original authority and jurisdiction of the
executive branch DMV, not this judicial branch court. See CVC
§1650 & §2400(b), CGC §§ 11425.10(a) (1
& 2), §11503 & §11502(a), supra.

19. Defendant's
unconditional right to travel is challenged by the issuance of a UTC claiming
violations of restrictive CVC
conditions. See CGC
§ 11503 & 11410.10, supra.

20. The Agency, not a
judicial branch court, is required to initiate an administrative Agency hearing
and send notice of action and a copy of the governing procedure to Defendant.
See CGC § 11503 and §11425.10(a) (1 & 2), supra.

21. According to CGC
§11410, §11410.20, §11410.50, § 11425.10(a)(1 &

2), §11503, §11502(a),
& §11523, supra, this judicial court has no jurisdiction to lawfully hear an
administrative matter until administrative due process procedures have been
exhausted.

22. This judicial
court can only review the facts and conclusions of law found in the executive
Agency's administrative final determination or order, and only after the Agency
(or Defendant) petitions for a writ of mandate for judicial review. See CGC
§11523, supra.

23. The Agency with
original jurisdiction has not filed a petition for a writ of mandate for
judicial review with this judicial court in accordance with CGC §11523.
Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. E. Conclusion

24. The original
jurisdiction Agency has not presented a petition to this court, for a writ of
mandate for this court to judicially review the administrative courts final
determination or order, which would give subject matter jurisdiction to this
judicial court. See CGC §11523. 25. The original jurisdiction Agency, as shown
by CVC §1650 & §2400(b), & CGC § 11502(a), supra, has not invoked the subject
matter jurisdiction of this judicial court. See CGC §11523, supra.

26. This judicial
branch court has no lawful authority to impose its opinion, where no original
jurisdiction administrative agency petition stands in compliance with the APA
requesting it to do so.

27. No judicial
determination has properly been requested. The law requires that jurisdiction be
properly invoked. Without jurisdiction, this court cannot consider this matter.
This case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

F. Prayer

28. Because this court
has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider

Case No.: T4600292-7,
Defendant asks the court to grant Defendant an Order Of Dismissal For Lack Of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction for said case.

Dated this 24th day of
July, 2004

xxxxxxxxxx

Respectfully
Submitted,

SUPERIOR COURT FOR
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Reedley Justice Court

815 "G" Street

Reedley. Ca 93654

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,

vs.

xxxxxxxxxx, Defendant

Case No.: xxxxxxxxxx

PROPOSED ORDER OF
DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The Court having
reviewed the evidence presented in the Memorandum

Of Points &
Authorities For Notice & Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction, and all pleadings and papers on file, and being fully advised
therein now finds:

Good cause appearing
therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

Case # T4600292-7, and
all court determinations and orders issued therein, is dismissed, with
prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated this ______ day
of _______________________, 2004

______________________________________

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT

SKATEBOARD BRIEF

xxxxxxxxxx

2929 flowerAve

Reedly Ca 93553

SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO

People of California Motion for Dismissal

vs.

xxxxxxxxxx, sur juris Court Room _______

Date ____/____/2004

The
people of the state have not filed a certified Final Administrative

Determination. The people of California have failed to make a claim, that

this court can hear, as per the Administrative Procedures Act.

There is no “Agency Final Administrative Determination” in the record.

This Court has nothing to review.

The
State has not exhausted its Administrative remedies. Therefore the

“Court” lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

To
move this Court forward without exhausting Administrative remedies

will be Depriving the accused “Due Process of Law”, a violation of

Constitutional Law.

Here are a few Supreme Court cases which back my position:

“Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved there can be

no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v.

Arizona 384 U.S.,

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a
crime.” Miller v. U. S., 230 F 2d 486, 489

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
Constitutional Rights” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

No
state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to
it.” MURDOCK v. PENN, 319 U.S., 105.

“If
the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the
right with impunity.” SHULLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM,
373 U.S., 262.

“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right,
from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. Independence, 100
S. CT 1398.

“The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured
liberty.” Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616.

“An
unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as
inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118
U.S. 425

“Proceedings in a court are legally void where there is an absence of
jurisdiction.” Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34; RE Bonner, 151 U.S. 242

“The exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be the basis of a crime.”
Marchetti v. U. S. 390 U.S.

The
Fifth Amendment mandates that all judicial proceedings must proceed by due
process.

Since all judges take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the
Supreme Court has additionally held that government employees who

violate a law in the performance of duties do not represent the government,
should we conclude that adjudication? Sure it does. This is the only

guarantee that a court of admiralty, a star chamber proceeding, a kangaroo
court, or an arbitrary proceeding by whatever name does not occur.

“That court proceedings must be within Constitutional provisions has been
forcefully established by the Supreme Court.” Muskrat v. United States,
219 U.S. 346; Smith v. U. S., 360 U. S. 1.

ANY
action involving a citation or ticket issued, confiscation, impoundment, or
search and seizure of my private property by a police officer or ANY

other public servant employee which carries a fine or jail time is a penalty or
sanction, thus converting a right into a crime.

Any
ticket or citation is thus NULL and VOID. Under every circumstance without
exception, government officials must hold the Constitution for

The UnitedStates of America (1791)
and the California Constitution (1849) supreme over ANY other laws, regulations,
or orders. Every police

(executive officer) or
judicial officer has sworn an oath to protect and lives, property, AND RIGHTS of
the Citizens of the united states of America

under the supreme law of
the land. ANY act to deprive state Citizens of their constitutionally
protected rights is a direct violation of their oath of